and new constant-degree expanders - arXiv · Entropy waves, the zig-zag graph product, and new constant-degree expanders By Omer Reingold, Salil Vadhan, and Avi Wigderson* Abstract

arX

iv:m

ath/

0406

038v

1 [

mat

h.C

O]

2 J

un 2

004

Annals of Mathematics, 155 (2002), 157–187

Entropy waves, the zig-zag graph product,

and new constant-degree expanders

By Omer Reingold, Salil Vadhan, and Avi Wigderson*

Abstract

The main contribution of this work is a new type of graph product, which

we call the zig-zag product. Taking a product of a large graph with a small

graph, the resulting graph inherits (roughly) its size from the large one, its

degree from the small one, and its expansion properties from both! Iteration

yields simple explicit constructions of constant-degree expanders of arbitrary

size, starting from one constant-size expander.

Crucial to our intuition (and simple analysis) of the properties of this

graph product is the view of expanders as functions which act as “entropy

wave” propagators — they transform probability distributions in which en-

tropy is concentrated in one area to distributions where that concentration is

dissipated. In these terms, the graph product affords the constructive interfer-

ence of two such waves.

Subsequent work [ALW01], [MW01] relates the zig-zag product of graphs

to the standard semidirect product of groups, leading to new results and con-

structions on expanding Cayley graphs.

Contents

1. Introduction1.1. Expander graphs1.2. Overview of expander construction1.3. The zig-zag graph product1.4. Intuition1.5. Expanders and extractors1.6. Extensions to the expander construction1.7. Subsequent work: Connections with semidirect product in groups1.8. Organization of the paper

∗Part of the research of the first author was performed while visiting the Institute for Advanced

Study, Princeton, NJ. Work of the second author was done while at MIT, supported by an NSF

Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. The third author was partially supported

by NSF grants CCR-9987007 and CCR-9987845.

Key words: expander graphs, graph products, entropy.

http://arXiv.org/abs/math/0406038v1

158 OMER REINGOLD, SALIL VADHAN, AND AVI WIGDERSON

2. Preliminaries2.1. Graphs and rotations2.2. Eigenvalues and expansions2.3. Squaring and tensoring

3. The zig-zag product and the expander construction3.1. The zig-zag graph product3.2. The recursion

4. Analysis of the zig-zag product4.1. The basic eigenvalue bound4.2. Improved analysis of the eigenvalue

5. The base graph5.1. The affine plane5.2. Low-degree polynomials

6. Variants on the zig-zag theme6.1. A “derandomized” zig-zag product

6.2. The replacement product

1. Introduction

1.1. Expander graphs. Expanders are graphs which are sparse but never-

theless highly connected. A precise definition will be given in the next section,

but here we informally list some properties of such graphs (which are equivalent

when formally stated and can serve as alternate definitions)

• The graph satisfies “strong” isoperimetric inequalities.

• Every set of vertices has “many” neighbors.

• Every cut has “many” edges crossing it.

• A random walk on the graph converges quickly to the stationary distri-

bution.

Expander graphs have been used to address many fundamental prob-

lems in computer science, on topics including network design (e.g. [Pip87],

[PY82], [AKS83]), complexity theory ([Val77], [Sip88], [Urq87]), derandomiza-

tion ([NN93], [INW94], [IW97]), coding theory ([SS96], [Spi96]), and cryptog-

raphy ([GILVZ90]). Expander graphs have also found some applications in

various areas of pure mathematics [KR83], [Lub94], [Gro00], [LP01].

Standard probabilistic arguments ([Pin73]) show that almost every constant-

degree (≥ 3) graph is an expander. However, explicit and efficient construction

of such graphs (which is required by most of the computer science applications

above) seems to be much harder. This problem leads to an exciting and exten-

sive body of research, developed mainly by mathematicians intrigued by this

computer science challenge.

THE ZIG-ZAG GRAPH PRODUCT 159

Most of this work was guided by the algebraic characterization of ex-

panders, developed in [Tan84], [AM85], [Alo86a]. They showed the intimate

relation of (appropriate quantitative versions of) all the properties above to the

spectral gap in the adjacency matrix (or, almost equivalently, the Laplacian)

of the graph. Using it, expanders can be defined as follows: An infinite family

Gn of D-regular graphs is an expander family if for all n the second largest

(in absolute value) eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix of Gn is bounded uni-

formly from above by the same λ < D. (Note that the degree D is independent

of n; this is what we mean by “constant degree.”)1

This algebraic definition naturally led researchers to consider algebraic

constructions, where this eigenvalue can be estimated. The celebrated sequence

of papers [Mar73], [GG81], [AM85], [AGM87], [JM87], [LPS88], [Mar88],

[Mor94] provided such constant-degree expanders. All these graphs are very

simple to describe: given the name of a vertex (in binary), its neighbors can

be computed in polynomial time (or even logarithmic space). This level of

explicitness is essential for many of the applications. However, the analysis

bounding the eigenvalue is quite sophisticated (and often based on deep math-

ematical results). Thus, it is hard to intuitively understand why these graphs

are expanders.

A deviation from this path was taken in [Ajt94], where a combinatorial

construction of cubic expanders was proposed. It starts with an arbitrary cubic

N -vertex graph and applies a sequence of polynomially many local operations

which gradually increase the girth and turn it into an expander. However,

the resulting graphs do not have any simply described form, and they lack

the explicitness level (and hence applicability) of the algebraic constructions

mentioned above.

In this work, we give a simple, combinatorial construction of constant-

degree expander graphs. Moreover, the analysis proving expansion (via the

second eigenvalue) is as simple and follows a clear intuition. The construction

is iterative, and needs as a basic building block a single, almost arbitrary ex-

pander of constant size. The parameters required from it can be easily obtained

explicitly, but exhaustive search is an equally good solution since it requires

only constant time. Simple operations applied to this graph generate another

whose size is increased but whose degree and expansion remain unchanged.

This process continues, yielding arbitrarily large expanders.

1On an intuitive level, the connection between the spectral gap and the combinatorial and

probabilistic properties of expanders listed above should not be surprising. For example, it is well

known that the standard random walk on the graph converges exponentially with base λ/D to the

stationary uniform distribution. Moreover, equal partitions of the vertices of a graph, thought of

as ±1-vectors, are orthogonal to the uniform distribution, and so the bilinear form representing the

number of edges in the cut can be bounded in terms of the gap between D and λ.


The heart of the iteration is our new “zig-zag” graph product. Informally,

taking a product of a large graph with a small graph, the resulting graph

inherits (roughly) its size from the large one, its degree from the small one,

and its expansion properties from both! (That is, the composed graph has good

expansion properties as long as the two original graphs have good expansion

properties.)

In the next subsections we give high level descriptions of the iterative con-

struction, the new graph product, the intuition behind it, various extensions.

We then mention subsequent work on the relation of the zig-zag product in

graphs to the semidirect product in groups and its applications to expanding

Cayley graphs.

1.2. Overview of expander construction. In this section, we describe a sim-

plified, but less efficient, version of our expander construction and omit formal

proofs. Our full construction is described in detail in Section 3. Throughout

this section, all graphs are regular, undirected, and may have loops and parallel

edges. The adjacency matrix of an N -vertex graph G is the matrix M whose

(u, v)th entry is the number of edges between vertices u and v. If the graph is

D-regular, then the normalized adjacency matrix is simply M/D. Note that

this stochastic matrix is the transition probability matrix of the natural ran-

dom walk on G, every step of which moves a “token” from a current vertex

along a uniformly chosen edge to a neighboring vertex. It is easy to see that

this matrix has an eigenvalue of 1, corresponding to the constant eigenvector,

and it turns out that all other eigenvalues have absolute value less than 1.

Our primary interest will be the second largest (in absolute value) eigenvalue

(which is known to govern the convergence rate of the random walk, and as

mentioned above is the essence of expansion).

Thus, three essential parameters play a role in an expander — size, degree

and expansion. We classify graphs accordingly.

Definition 1.1. An (N,D, λ)-graph is any D-regular graph on N ver-

tices, whose normalized adjacency matrix has second largest (in absolute value)

eigenvalue at most λ.

The basic operations. We use two operations on (the adjacency matrices

of) graphs — the standard matrix squaring, and our new zig-zag graph product.

Here is their effect on these three parameters.

Squaring: Let G2 denote the square of G. Then

Fact 1.2. (n, d, λ)2 → (n, d2, λ2).

The zig-zag product: Let G1 ©z G2 denote the new graph product of

G1 and G2. Then


Theorem 1.3. (N1,D1, λ1)©z (D1,D2, λ2) → (N1 ·D1, D22, λ1 +λ2 +λ2

2).

(The eigenvalue bound of λ1 +λ2 +λ22 is improved somewhat in Sections 3

and 4.)

The iterations. Let H be any (D4,D, 1/5)-graph, which will serve as the

building block for our construction. We define a sequence of graphs Gi as

follows.

• G1 = H2,

• Gi+1 = G2i ©z H.

From Fact 1.2 and Theorem 1.3 above, it is easy to conclude that this sequence

is indeed an infinite family of expanders:

Theorem 1.4. For every i, Gi is an (Ni,D2, 2/5)-graph with Ni = D4i.

This construction is not as efficient as we would like — computing neigh-

borhoods in Gi takes time polynomial in Ni rather than polynomial in logNi.

As we show in Section 3, this is easily overcome by augmenting the iterations

with another standard graph operation.

1.3. The zig-zag graph product. The new product mentioned above takes

a large graph and a small one, and produces a graph that (roughly speaking)

inherits the size of the large one but the degree of the small one. This was the

key to creating arbitrarily large graphs with bounded degrees. Naturally, we

are concerned with maintaining the expansion properties of the two graphs.

First, we describe the product.

For simplicity, we assume that the edges in our D-regular graphs are

D-colored; that is, they are partitioned to D perfect matchings. (This as-

sumption loses generality, and we will remove it in the formal construction in

§2.) For a color i ∈ [D] and a vertex v let v[i] be the neighbor of v along the

edge colored i. With this simple notation, we can formally define the zig-zag

product ©z (and then explain it).

Definition 1.5. Let G1 be an D1-regular graph on [N1] and G2 a

D2-regular graph on [D1]. Then G1©z G2 is a D22-regular graph on [N1]× [D1]

defined as follows: For all v ∈ [N1], k ∈ [D1], i, j ∈ [D2], the edge (i, j) connects

the vertex (v, k) to the vertex (v[k[i]], k[i][j]).

What is going on? Note that the size of the small graph G2 is the degree

of the large graph G1. Thus a vertex name in G1 ©z G2 has a first component

which is a vertex of the large graph, and a second which is viewed both as a

vertex of the small graph and an edge color of the large one. The edge label

in G1 ©z G2 is just a pair of edge labels in the small graph. One step in the


new product graph from a vertex (v, k) along the edge (i, j) can be broken into

three substeps.

1. (v, k) → (v, k[i]) — A step (“zig”) in the small graph moving k to k[i].

This affects only the second component, according to the first edge label.

2. (v, k[i]) → (v[k[i]], k[i]) — A step in the large graph, changing the first

component according to the second, viewed as an edge color.

3. (v[k[i]], k[i]) → (v[k[i]], k[i][j]) – A step (“zag”) in the small graph moving

k[i] to k[i][j]. This affects only the second component, according to the

second edge label.

1.4. Intuition. Why does it work? More precisely, why does Theorem 1.3

hold? What this theorem says intuitively, is that G1 ©z G2 is a good expander

as long as both G1 and G2 are good expanders. Consider the above three steps

as a random walk on G1 ©z G2. Then Steps 1 and 3 are independent random

steps on the small graph. If at least one of them “works” as well as it does in

the small graph, then this would guarantee that the new graph is as good an

expander as the small one. So let us argue (very intuitively) that indeed one

of them “works.”

A random step in an expander increases the (H2-) entropy of a distribu-

tion on the vertices, provided that it is not already too close to uniform. Let

us consider a distribution on the vertices of the new graph (v, k). Roughly

speaking, there are two cases.

• If the distribution of the second component k (conditioned on v) is not

too uniform, then Step 1 “works.” Since Step 2 is just a permutation

and Step 3 is a random step on a regular graph, these steps cannot make

the distribution less uniform and undo the progress made in Step 1.

• If k (conditioned on v) is very close to uniform, then Step 1 is a “waste.”

However, Step 2 is then like a real random step in the large expander G1!

This means that the entropy of the first component v increases. Note

that Step 2 is a permutation on the vertices of G1 ©z G2, so if entropy

increases in the first component, it decreases in the second. That means

that in Step 3 we are in the good case (the conditional distribution on the

second component is far from uniform), and the entropy of the second

component will increase by the expansion of the small graph.

The key to this product is that Step 2 is simultaneously a permutation (so

that any progress made in Step 1 is preserved) and an operation whose “projec-

tion” to the first component is simply a random step on the large graph (when

the second component is random). All previous discussions of expanders fo-

cused on the increase of entropy to the vertex distribution by a step along a


random edge. We insist on keeping track of that edge name, and consider the

joint distribution! In a good expander, if the edge is indeed random, the en-

tropy propagates from it to the vertex. This reduces the (conditional) entropy

in the edge. Thus the “entropy wave” in Step 2, in which no fresh randomness

enters the distribution on vertices of G1 ©z G2, is what facilitates entropy in-

crease in Steps 1 or 3. Either the “zig” step does it, if there is room for more

entropy in k, or if not (which may be viewed as destructive interference of the

large and small waves in Step 1), Step 2 guarantees constructive interference

in Step 3. Moreover, Step 1 is not redundant as, if there is no or little ini-

tial entropy in k, the wave of Step 2 (being a permutation) may flood k with

entropy, destroying the effect of Step 3.

The formal proof of Theorem 1.3 follows this intuition quite closely, and

separately analyzes these two extreme cases. Indeed, since it becomes linear

algebra, these two cases are very natural to define, and the only ones to worry

about — all intermediate cases follow by linearity! Moreover, the variational

definition of the second eigenvalue better captures the symmetry of the zig

and zag steps (and gives a better bound than what can be obtained from this

asymmetric intuition).

1.5. Expanders and extractors. Here we attempt an intuitive explanation

of how we stumbled on the definition of the zig-zag product, and the intuition

that it does what it should. While this subsection may not be self-contained,

it will at least lead the interested reader to discover more of the fascinating

world of extractors.

The current paper is part of research described in our conference paper

[RVW00] which deals with constructions of both expanders and extractors.

Extractors are combinatorial objects, defined by [NZ96], which, roughly speak-

ing, “purify” arbitrary nonuniform probability distributions into uniform ones.

These objects are as fascinating and as applicable as expanders (see, e.g., the

survey papers [Nis96], [NT99]). Like expanders, their applications demand

explicit construction. Like with expanders, the quest for such constructions

has been extremely fruitful and illuminating for complexity theory. Unlike ex-

panders, the construction of optimal extractors is still a challenge, although

the best existing ones are quite close to optimal (see the current state of the

art, as well as a survey of previous constructions, in [RSW00], [TUZ01]).

Expander graphs were ingredients in some previous extractor construc-

tions (as extractors may be viewed as graphs as well). Here the situation is

reversed. The expander construction of this paper followed our discovery of

nearly optimal high min-entropy extractors, which handle the “purification” of

distributions which are already not too far from being uniform. A key idea in

approaching optimality (following [RR99]) was preserving the unused entropy

in a random step on an extractor. This lead to a (more complex) type of zig-zag


product, and from it, iterative constructions of such extractors. Translating

this idea to the expander world turned out to be cleaner and more natural

than in the extractor world. It led to our understanding of the role of the

edge-name as a keeper of the unused entropy in a step of a standard random

walk, and to the zig-zag product defined above.

1.6. Extensions to the expander construction. The list below details the

extensions and refinements we obtain to the basic expander construction out-

lined above. All these will be part of the formal sections which follow.

More explicit graphs. As mentioned above, this construction is not as effi-

cient as we would like — computing neighborhoods in Gi takes time polynomial

in Ni rather than in logNi. As we show in Section 3, this is easily overcome

by augmenting the iterations with another standard graph operation, namely

taking tensor powers of the adjacency matrix.

Describing graphs by “rotation maps.” Another explicitness problem in

the simple construction above is the assumption that the our D-regular graphs

are given together with a proper D-coloring of the edges. This property is

not preserved by the zig-zag product. To avoid it, we describe graphs more

generally by their “rotation maps,” and show how this description is explicitly

preserved by all graph operations in our construction.

Smaller degree. A naive and direct implementation of our graph product

yields expanders whose degree is reasonable, but not that small (something

under 1000). In Section 3.2, we show how to combine this construction, to-

gether with one, constant-size cycle, to obtain an infinite family of explicit

degree 4 expanders. Again, this combination uses the zig-zag product. In fact,

using the replacement product described below, we obtain explicit degree 3

expanders (which is the smallest possible).

Choice of the base graph. Our expander construction requires an initial

“constant size” base graph H as a building block. While exhaustive search

can be used to find such an H (since it is constant size), for completeness we

include two elementary explicit constructions (from [Alo86b, AR94]) which can

be used instead.

Better degree vs. eigenvalue relation. The best relationship between de-

gree and second largest eigenvalue is obtained by Ramanujan graphs, in which

the second eigenvalue is 2√D − 1/D. This equals the first eigenvalue of the

D-regular infinite tree, and it is known that no finite D-regular graph can have

a smaller second largest eigenvalue (cf., [Alo86a], [LPS88], [Nil91]). Remark-

able graphs achieving this optimal bound were first constructed independently

by [LPS88] (who coined the term Ramanujan graphs) and by [Mar88].


Our constructions do not achieve this tight relationship. The zig-zag prod-

uct, applied recursively to one fixed Ramanujan graph, will yield D-regular ex-

panders of second largest eigenvalue O(1/D1/4). A “partially derandomized”

variant of our zig-zag product, given in Section 6, improves this relation and

achieves second eigenvalue O(1/D1/3).

A simpler product. Perhaps the most natural way to combine G1 with

G2 when the size of G2 is the degree of G1 is simply replace every vertex of

G1 with a copy of G2 in the natural way, keeping the edges of both graphs.

This replacement product, which was often used for degree-reduction purposes

(e.g., when G2 is a cycle the resulting graph has degree 3) turns out to enjoy

similar properties of the zig-zag product: if both G1 and G2 are expanders,

then so is their replacement product. Moreover, the proof is by a reduction —

the zig-zag product is a subgraph of the cube (3rd power) of the replacement

product, immediately giving an eigenvalue bound.

1.7. Subsequent work : Connections with semidirect product in groups.

Subsequent to this work, it was shown in [ALW01] that the zig-zag (and re-

placement) products can be viewed as a generalization of the standard semidi-

rect product of groups. This was used in [ALW01] to construct a family of

groups which is expanding with one (constant size) set of generators, but is

not expanding with another such set. The connection was further developed

in [MW01] to produce new families of expanding Cayley graphs, via bounds

on the number of irreducible representations of different dimensions in terms

of the expansion.

1.8. Organization of the paper. In Section 2, we give preliminary def-

initions and basic facts. In Section 3, we define the zig-zag graph product,

describe the construction of expanders, and state their properties. In particu-

lar, it deals with the first four “extensions” listed in the previous subsection.

In Section 4, we analyze the expansion of the zig-zag product. In Section 5, we

discuss some ways to obtain the base graph used in our expander construction.

In Section 6, we give two extensions to the basic zig-zag product. The first is

a “derandomized” variant of our basic zig-zag product, which enjoys a better

relationship between the degree and the expansion. The second is the simple,

natural replacement product.

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Graphs and rotations. All graphs we discuss may have self-loops

and parallel edges. They are best described by their (nonnegative, integral)

adjacency matrix. Such a graph is undirected if and only if the adjacency

matrix is symmetric. It is D-regular if the sum of entries in each row (and

column) is D (so exactly D edges are incident to every vertex).


Let G be a D-regular undirected graph on N vertices. Suppose that the

edges leaving each vertex of G are labeled from 1 to D in some arbitrary, but

fixed, way. Then for v,w ∈ [N ] and i ∈ [D], it makes sense (and is standard)

to say “the ith neighbor of vertex v is w.” In this work, we make a point to

always keep track of the edge traversed to get from v to w. This is formalized

as follows:

Definition 2.1. For a D-regular undirected graph G, the rotation map

RotG : [N ] × [D] → [N ] × [D] is defined as follows: RotG(v, i) = (w, j) if the

ith edge incident to v leads to w, and this edge is the jth edge incident to w.

This definition enables us to remove the simplifying assumption made

in the introduction, which was that the label of an edge is the same from

the perspective of both endpoints, i.e. RotG(v, i) = (w, j) ⇒ i = j. From

Definition 2.1, it is clear that RotG is a permutation, and moreover RotG◦RotGis the identity map.

We will always view graphs as being specified by their rotation maps.

Hence we call a family G of graphs explicit if for every G ∈ G, RotG is com-

putable in time poly(logN), where N is the number of vertices of G. That is,

graphs in G are indexed by some parameters (such as the number of vertices

and the degree, which may be required to satisfy some additional relations)

and there should be a single algorithm which efficiently computes RotG for

any G ∈ G when given these parameters as an additional input. The notation

poly() stands for a fixed (but unspecified) polynomial function in the given

variables. We will often informally refer to an individual graph as explicit, as

shorthand for saying that the graph comes from an explicit family.

Our constructions will be iterative (or recursive), and will be based on

a sequence of composition operations, constructing new graphs from given

ones. The definition of these compositions (or products) will show how the

rotation map of the new graph can be computed using “oracle access” to the

rotation maps of the given graphs. (By giving an algorithm “oracle access”

to a function f , we mean that the algorithm is given power to evaluate f on

inputs of its choice at the cost of one time step per evaluation.) Given the

time complexity of such a computation and the number of oracle calls made,

it will be easy to compute the total time required by a recursive construction.

2.2. Eigenvalues and expansions. The normalized adjacency matrix M of

G is the adjacency matrix of G divided by D. In terms of the rotation map,

we have:

Mu,v =1

D·∣

∣

∣{(i, j) ∈ [D]2 : RotG(u, i) = (v, j)}∣

∣

∣ .

M is simply the transition matrix of a random walk on G. By the D-regularity

of G, the all-1’s vector 1N = (1, 1, . . . , 1) ∈ RN is an eigenvector of M of


eigenvalue 1. It is turns out that all the other eigenvalues of M have absolute

value at most 1, and it is well known that the second largest eigenvalue of G is

a good measure of G’s expansion properties [Tan84], [AM85], [Alo86a]. We will

use the following variational characterization of the second largest eigenvalue.

Definition 2.2. λ(G) denotes the second largest eigenvalue (in absolute

value) of G’s normalized adjacency matrix. Equivalently,

λ(G) = maxα⊥1N

|〈α,Mα〉|〈α,α〉 = max

α⊥1N

‖Mα‖‖α‖ .

Above, 〈·, ·〉 refers to the standard inner product in RN and ‖α‖ =√

〈α,α〉.The meaning of λ(G) can be understood as follows: Suppose π ∈ [0, 1]N

is a probability distribution on the vertices of G. By linear algebra, π can be

decomposed as π = uN + π⊥, where uN = 1N/N is the uniform distribution

and π⊥ ⊥ uN . Then Mπ = uN + Mπ⊥ is the probability distribution on

vertices obtained by selecting a vertex v according to π and then moving to

a uniformly selected neighbor of v. By Definition 2.2, ‖Mπ⊥‖ ≤ λ(G) · ‖π⊥‖.Thus λ(G) is a measure of how quickly the random walk on G converges to

the uniform distribution. Intuitively, the smaller λ(G) is, the better the ex-

pansion properties of G. Accordingly, an (infinite) family G of graphs is called

a family of expanders if these eigenvalues are bounded away from 1, i.e. there

is a constant λ < 1 such that λ(G) ≤ λ for all G ∈ G. It was shown by

Tanner [Tan84] and Alon and Milman [AM85] that this implies (and is in fact

equivalent to [Alo86a]) the standard notion of vertex expansion: there is a con-

stant ε > 0 such that for every G ∈ G and for any set S of at most half the

vertices in G, at least (1 + ε) · |S| vertices of G are connected to some vertex

in S.

As mentioned in the introduction, we refer to aD-regular undirected graph

G on N vertices such that λ(G) ≤ λ as an (N,D, λ)-graph. Clearly, achieving

expansion is easier as the degree gets larger. The main goal in constructing ex-

panders is to minimize the degree, and, more generally, obtain the best degree-

expansion tradeoff. Using the probabilistic method, Pinsker [Pin73] showed

that most 3-regular graphs are expanders (in the sense of vertex expansion),

and this result was extended to eigenvalue bounds in [Alo86a], [BS87], [FKS89],

[Fri91]. The best-known bound on the eigenvalues of random graphs is due to

Friedman [Fri91], who showed that most D-regular graphs have second largest

eigenvalue at most 2/√D + O((logD)/D) (for even D). In fact, the bound

of 2√D − 1/D is the best possible for an infinite family of graphs, as shown

by Alon and Boppana (cf. [Alo86a], [LPS88], [Nil91]). Graphs whose second

largest eigenvalue meets this optimal bound are called Ramanujan graphs. It

is easy to verify that this value is the largest eigenvalue of the random walk on

the infinite D-regular tree.


While these probabilistic arguments provide strong existential results, ap-

plications of expanders in computer science often require explicit families of

constant-degree expanders. The first such construction was given by

Margulis [Mar73], with improvements and simplifications by Gabber and

Galil [GG81], Jimbo and Maruoka [JM87], Alon and Milman [AM85], and Alon,

Galil, and Milman [AGM87]. Explicit families of Ramanujan graphs were first

constructed by Lubotzky, Phillips, and Sarnak [LPS88] and Margulis [Mar88],

with more recent constructions given by Morgenstern [Mor94]. The best eigen-

values we know how to achieve using our approach are O(1/D1/3).

2.3. Squaring and tensoring. In addition to the new zig-zag product, our

expander construction makes use of two standard operations on graphs —

squaring and tensoring. Here we describe these operations in terms of rotation

maps and state their effects on the eigenvalues.

Let G be a D-regular multigraph on [N ] given by rotation map RotG.

The tth power of G is the Dt-regular graph Gt whose rotation map is given

by RotGt(v0, (k1, k2, . . . , kt)) = (vt, (ℓt, ℓt−1, . . . , ℓ1)), where these values are

computed via the rule (vi, ℓi) = RotG(vi−1, ki).

Proposition 2.3. If G is an (N,D, λ)-graph, then Gt is an (N,Dt, λt)-

graph. Moreover, RotGt is computable in time poly(logN, logD, t) with t oracle

queries to RotG.

Proof. The normalized adjacency matrix of Gt is the tth power of the

normalized adjacency matrix of G, so all the eigenvalues also get raised to the

tth power.

Let G1 be a D1-regular multigraph on [N1] and let G2 be a D2-regular

multigraph on [N2]. Define the tensor product G1⊗G2 to be the D1 ·D2-regular

multigraph on [N1]× [N2] given by RotG1⊗G2((v,w), (i, j)) = ((v′, w′), (i′, j′)),

where (v′, i′) = RotG1(v, i) and (w′, j′) = RotG2

(w, j). In order to analyze this

construction (and our new graph product), we need some concepts from linear

algebra. For vectors α ∈ RN1 and β ∈ RN2, their tensor product is the vector

α ⊗ β ∈ RN1·N2 whose (i, j)th entry is αi · βj . If A is an N1 ×N1 matrix and

B is an N2 ×N2 matrix, then there is a unique N1N2 ×N1N2 matrix A⊗ B

(again called the tensor product) such that (A⊗B)(α⊗ β) = (Aα)⊗ (Bβ) for

all α, β.

Proposition 2.4. If G1 is an (N1,D1, λ1)-graph and G2 is an (N2,D2, λ2)-

graph, then G1 ⊗ G2 is an (N1 · N2,D1 · D2,max(λ1, λ2))-graph. Moreover,

RotG1⊗G2is computable in time poly(logN1N2, logD1D2) with one oracle query

to RotG1and one oracle query to RotG2

.


Proof. The normalized adjacency matrix of G1⊗G2 is the tensor product

of the normalized adjacency matrices of G1 and G2. Hence its eigenvalues are

the pairwise products of eigenvalues of G1 and G2. The largest eigenvalue is

1 · 1, and the second largest eigenvalue is either 1 · λ2 or λ1 · 1.

3. The zig-zag product and the expander construction

In the introduction, we described how to obtain a family of expanders by

iterating two operations on graphs — squaring and the new “zig-zag” product.

That description used a simplifying assumption about the edge labeling. In

terms of rotation maps, the assumption was that Rot(v, i) = (w, j) ⇒ i = j.

In this section, we describe the construction in terms of arbitrary rotation

maps and prove its properties. The expander construction given here will also

use tensoring to improve the efficiency to polylogarithmic in the number of

vertices. This deals with the first two items in the “extensions” subsection

of the introduction, which are summarized in Theorem 3.2. The third item,

obtaining expanders of degree 4, will follow in Corollary 3.4. The analysis of

the zig-zag product is deferred to the following section.

3.1. The zig-zag graph product. We begin by describing the new graph

product in terms of rotation maps. Let G1 be a D1-regular multigraph on [N1]

and G2 a D2-regular multigraph on [D1]. Their zig-zag product is a D22-regular

multigraphG1©z G2 on [N1]×[D1]. We view every vertex v of G1 as being blown

up to a “cloud” ofD1 vertices (v, 1), . . . , (v,D1), one for each edge of G1 leaving

v. Thus for every edge e = (v,w) of G1, there are two associated vertices of

G1 ©z G2 — (v, k) and (w, ℓ), where e is the kth edge leaving v and the ℓth

edge leaving w. Note that these pairs satisfy the relation (w, ℓ) = RotG1(v, k).

Since G2 is a graph on [D1], we can also imagine connecting the vertices of

each such cloud using the edges of G2. Now, the edges of G1 ©z G2 are defined

(informally) as follows: we connect two vertices (v, k) and (w, ℓ) if it is possible

to get from (v, k) to (w, ℓ) by a sequence of moves of the following form:

1. Move to a neighboring vertex (v, k′) within the initial cloud (using an

edge of G2),

2. Jump across clouds (using edge k′ of G1) to get to (w, ℓ′),

3. Move to a neighboring vertex (w, ℓ) within the new cloud (using an edge

of G2).

To make this precise, we describe how to compute the RotG1©z G2given RotG1

and RotG2.


Definition 3.1. If G1 is a D1-regular graph on [N1] with rotation map

RotG1and G2 is a D2-regular graph on [D1] with rotation map RotG2

, then

their zig-zag product G1©z G2 is defined to be theD22-regular graph on [N1]×[D1]

whose rotation map RotG1©z G2is as follows:

RotG1©z G2((v, k), (i, j)):

1. Let (k′, i′) = RotG2(k, i),

2. Let (w, ℓ′) = RotG1(v, k′),

3. Let (ℓ, j′) = RotG2(ℓ′, j),

4. Output ((w, ℓ), (j′, i′)).

The important feature of this graph product is that G1 ©z G2 is a good

expander if both G1 and G2 are, as shown by the following theorem.

Theorem 3.2. If G1 is an (N1,D1, λ1)-graph and G2 is a (D1,D2, λ2)-

graph, then G1 ©z G2 is a (N1 · D1,D22, f(λ1, λ2))-graph, where f(λ1, λ2) ≤

λ1 + λ2 + λ22 and f(λ1, λ2) < 1 when λ1, λ2 < 1. Moreover, RotG1©z G2

can

be computed in time poly(logN, logD1, logD2) with one oracle query to RotG1

and two oracle queries to RotG2.

Stronger bounds on the function f(λ1, λ2) are given in Section 4. Before

proving Theorem 3.2, we show how it can be used to construct an infinite

family of constant-degree expanders starting from a constant-size expander.

3.2. The recursion. The construction is like the construction in the intro-

duction, except that we use tensoring to reduce the depth of the recursion and

thereby make the construction run in polylogarithmic time (in the size of the

graph).

Let H be a (D8,D, λ)-graph for some D and λ. (Various methods for

obtaining such an H are described in §5.) For every t ≥ 1, we will define a

(D8t,D2, λt)-graph Gt. G1 is H2 and G2 is H⊗H. For t > 2, Gt is recursively

defined by

Gt =(

G⌈ t−1

2⌉ ⊗G⌊ t−1

2⌋)2 ©z H.

Theorem 3.3. For every t ≥ 0, Gt is an (D8t,D2, λt)-graph with λt =

λ+O(λ2). Moreover, RotGtcan be computed in time poly(t, logD) with poly(t)

oracle queries to RotH .

Proof. A straightforward induction establishes that the number of vertices

in Gt is D8t and that its degree is D2. To analyze the eigenvalues, define

µt = max{λ1, . . . , λt}. Then we have µt ≤ max{µt−1, µ2t−1 + λ + λ2} for all


t ≥ 2. Solving this recurrence gives µt ≤ λ+O(λ2) for all t. For the efficiency,

note that the depth of the recursion is at most log2 t and evaluating the rotation

maps for Gt requires 4 evaluations of rotation maps for smaller graphs, so the

total number of recursive calls is at most 4log2 t = t2.

In order for Theorem 3.3 to guarantee that graphs {Gt} are expanders,

the second largest eigenvalue λ of the building block H must be sufficiently

small (say, λ ≤ 1/5). This forces the degree of H and hence the degree of

the expander family to be rather large, though still constant. However, by

zig-zagging the family {Gt} with a cycle, we can obtain a family of degree

4 expanders. More generally, we can use this method convert any family of

odd-degree expanders into a family of degree 4 expanders:

Corollary 3.4. For every λ < 1 and every odd D, there exists a λ′ < 1

such that if G is an (N,D, λ)-graph and C is the cycle on D vertices, then

G©z C is a (ND, 4, λ′)-graph.

Proof. As with any connected and nonbipartite graph, λ(C) is strictly less

than 1 for an odd cycle C (though λ(C) → 1 as D → ∞). Thus, the corollary

follows from Theorem 3.2.

4. Analysis of the zig-zag product

This section has two subsections. In the first, we give the basic (subop-

timal) bound of Theorem 3.2. This bound uses only the intuitive ideas of the

introduction, and suffices for the construction of the previous section. In the

next, we state and prove a tighter eigenvalue bound. It uses extra information

about the zig-zag product (which is less intuitive). It also gives more informa-

tion about the worst interplay between the two extreme cases studied in the

basic analysis, and may hopefully shed a bit of light on the structure of the

eigenvectors of the zig-zag product.

4.1. The basic eigenvalue bound. Now we prove Theorem 3.2. Recall the

intuition behind the zig-zag product. We aim to show that for any (nonuni-

form) initial probability distribution π on the vertices of G1 ©z G2, taking a

random step on G1 ©z G2 results in a distribution that is more uniform. We

argued this intuitively in the introduction, by considering two extreme cases,

based on the conditional distributions induced by π on the N1 “clouds” of D1

vertices each: one in which these conditional distributions are far from uni-

form, and the second in which they are uniform. The actual linear algebra proof

below will restrict itself to these two cases by decomposing any other vector

into a linear combination of the two. Also, the argument in the introduction


was not symmetric in the first and second steps on the small graph. Using the

variational definition of the second largest eigenvalue, we get a cleaner analysis

than by following that intuition directly.

Let M be the normalized adjacency matrix of G1©z G2. According to Defi-

nition 2.2, we must show that, for every vector α ∈ RN1·D1 such that α ⊥ 1N1D1,

|〈Mα,α〉| is smaller than 〈α,α〉 by a factor f(λ1, λ2). For intuition, α should

be thought of as the nonuniform component of the probability distribution π

referred to above, i.e. π = uN1D1+ α, where uN1D1

= 1N1D1/N1D1 is the

uniform distribution on [N1D1]. Thus, we are showing that π becomes more

uniform after a random step on G1 ©z G2.

For every v ∈ [N1], define αv ∈ RD1 by (αv)k = αvk. Also define a

(linear) map C : RN1·D1 → RN1 by (Cα)v =∑D1

k=1 αvk. Thus, for a probability

distribution π on the vertices of G1 ©z G2, πv is a multiple of the conditional

distribution on “cloud v” and Cπ gives the marginal distribution on set of

clouds. By definition, α =∑

v ev⊗αv, where ev denotes the vth standard basis

vector in RN1 . By basic linear algebra, every αv can be decomposed (uniquely)

into αv = α‖v + α⊥

v where α‖v is parallel to 1D1

(i.e., all of its entries are the

same) and α⊥v is orthogonal to 1D1

(i.e., the sum of its entries are 0). Thus,

we obtain a decomposition of α:

α =∑

v

ev ⊗ αv

=∑

v

ev ⊗ α‖v +

∑

v

ev ⊗ α⊥v

def= α‖ + α⊥.

This decomposition corresponds to the two cases in our intuition: α‖

corresponds to a probability distribution on the vertices of G1 ©z G2 such that

the conditional distributions on the clouds are all uniform. α⊥ corresponds to

a distribution such that the conditional distributions on the clouds are all far

from uniform. Another way of matching α‖ with the intuition is to note that

α‖ = Cα ⊗ 1D1/D1. Since α and α⊥ are both orthogonal to 1N1D1

, so is α‖

and hence also Cα is orthogonal to 1N1.

To analyze how M acts on these two vectors, we relate M to the nor-

malized adjacency matrices of G1 and G2, which we denote by A and B,

respectively. First, we decompose M into the product of three matrices, corre-

sponding to the three steps in the definition of G1©z G2’s edges. Let B be the

(normalized) adjacency matrix of the graph on [N1] × [D1] where we connect

the vertices within each cloud according to the edges of G2. B is related to

B by the relation B = IN1⊗ B, where IN1

is the N1 × N1 identity matrix.

Let A be the permutation matrix corresponding to RotG1. The relationship

between A and A is somewhat subtle, so we postpone describing it until later.


By the definition of G1 ©z G2, we have M = BAB. Note that both B and A

are symmetric matrices, due to the undirectedness of G1 and G2.

Recall that we want to bound |〈Mα,α〉|/〈α,α〉. By the symmetry of B,

(1) 〈Mα,α〉 = 〈BABα, α〉 = 〈ABα, Bα〉.

Now note that Bα‖ = α‖, because α‖ = Cα ⊗ 1D1/D1, B = IN1

⊗ B, and

B1D1= 1D1

. This corresponds to the fact that if the conditional distribution

within each cloud is uniform, then taking a random G2-step does nothing.

Hence, Bα = B(α‖ + α⊥) = α‖ + Bα⊥. Substituting this into (1), we have

(2) 〈Mα,α〉 = 〈A(α‖ + Bα⊥), α‖ + Bα⊥〉.

Expanding and using the fact that A is length-preserving (because it is a

permutation matrix), we have

|〈Mα,α〉||〈Aα‖, α‖〉| + 2‖α‖‖ · ‖Bα⊥‖ + ‖Bα⊥‖2.(3)

Now we apply the expansion properties of G1 and G2 to bound each of

these terms. First, we bound ‖Bα⊥‖, which corresponds to the intuition that

when the conditional distributions within the clouds are far from uniform, they

become more uniform when we take a random G2-step.

Claim 4.1. ‖Bα⊥‖ ≤ λ2 · ‖α⊥‖.

Proof of claim.

Bα⊥ = B

(

∑

v

ev ⊗ α⊥v

)

=∑

v

ev ⊗Bα⊥v .

By the expansion of G2, ‖Bα⊥v ‖ ≤ λ2 · ‖α⊥

v ‖ for all v. Hence, ‖Bα⊥‖ ≤λ2 · ‖α⊥‖.

Next, we bound |〈Aα‖, α‖〉|, which corresponds to the intuition that when

the conditional distribution within each cloud is uniform, the jump between

the clouds makes the marginal distribution on clouds themselves more uniform.

Claim 4.2. |〈Aα‖, α‖〉| ≤ λ1 · 〈α‖, α‖〉.

Proof of claim. To prove this, we must first relate A to A. Recall that

when k is uniformly distributed, RotG1(v, k) gives a pair (w, ℓ) where w is a

uniformly selected neighbor of v. Similarly, if ev ∈ RN1 is the vth standard

basis vector, then Aev gives the uniform distribution over the neighbors of v.

This similarity is captured by the formula CA(ev ⊗ 1D1/D1) = Aev for all v.

(Tensoring ev with 1D1/D1 corresponds to taking the uniform distribution


over k and applying C corresponds to discarding ℓ and looking just at w.)

Because the ev’s form a basis, this formula extends to all vectors β ∈ RN1 :

CA(β⊗1D1/D1) = Aβ. Applying this formula to α‖ = Cα⊗1D1

/D1, we have

CA(α‖) = ACα. Thus,

〈Aα‖, α‖〉 = 〈Aα‖, Cα⊗ 1D1〉/D1

= 〈CAα‖, Cα〉/D1

= 〈ACα,Cα〉/D1.

Recalling that Cα is orthogonal to 1N1, we may apply the expansion of G1 to

obtain:

|〈Aα‖, α‖〉| ≤ λ1 · 〈Cα,Cα〉/D1

= λ1 · 〈Cα⊗ 1D1, Cα⊗ 1D1

〉/D21

= λ1 · 〈α‖, α‖〉.

Substituting the bounds of Claim 4.1 and 4.2 into (3), we have:

(4) |〈Mα,α〉| ≤ λ1 · ‖α‖‖2 + 2λ2 · ‖α‖‖ · ‖α⊥‖ + λ22 · ‖α⊥‖2.

If we let p = ‖α‖‖/‖α‖ and q = ‖α⊥‖/‖α‖, then p2 + q2 = 1, and the

above expression can be rewritten as:

|〈Mα,α〉|〈α,α〉 ≤ λ1 · p2 + 2λ2 · pq + λ2

2 · q2 ≤ λ1 + λ2 + λ22.

This shows that we can take f(λ1, λ2) ≤ λ1 +λ2 + λ22. It remains to show

that we can set f(λ1, λ2) < 1 as long as λ1, λ2 < 1. We consider two cases,

depending on the length of ‖α⊥‖. First, suppose that ‖α⊥‖ ≤ 1−λ1

3λ2·‖α‖. Then,

from (4), we have

|〈Mα,α〉| ≤ λ1 · ‖α‖2 + 2λ2 ·(

1 − λ1

3λ2

)

‖α‖2

+ λ22 ·(

1 − λ1

3λ2

)2

‖α‖2 <

(

1 − 1 − λ1

9

)

· ‖α‖2.

Now suppose that ‖α⊥‖ > 1−λ1

3λ2· ‖α‖. Notice that Bα⊥ is orthogonal to

α‖: 〈Bα⊥, α‖〉 = 〈α⊥, Bα‖〉 = 〈α⊥, α‖〉 = 0. Using this, we can bound (2) as

follows:

|〈Mα,α〉| = |〈A(α‖ + Bα⊥), α‖ + Bα⊥〉| ≤ ‖α‖ + Bα⊥‖2 = ‖α‖‖2 + ‖Bα⊥‖2

≤ ‖α‖2 − ‖α⊥‖2 + λ22 · ‖α⊥‖2 ≤ ‖α‖2 − (1 − λ2

2) ·(

1 − λ1

3λ2

)2

· ‖α‖2.

Thus, we can take

f(λ1, λ2) ≤ 1 − min

{

1 − λ1

9,(1 − λ1)

2 · (1 − λ22)

9λ22

}

< 1.


4.2. Improved analysis of the eigenvalue. In this subsection we state and

prove an improved upper bound on the second largest eigenvalue produced by

the zig-zag product.

Theorem 4.3 (Thm. 3.2, improved). If G1 is an (N1,D1, λ1)-graph and

G2 is a (D1,D2, λ2)-graph, then G1 ©z G2 is a (N1 · D1,D22, f(λ1, λ2))-graph,

where

f(λ1, λ2) =1

2(1 − λ2

2)λ1 +1

2

√

(1 − λ22)

2λ21 + 4λ2

2.

Although the function f(λ1, λ2) looks ugly, it can be verified that it has

the following nice properties:

1. f(λ, 0) = f(0, λ) = λ and f(λ, 1) = f(1, λ) = 1 for all λ ∈ [0, 1].

2. f(λ1, λ2) is a strictly increasing function of both λ1 and λ2 (except when

one of them is 1).

3. If λ1 < 1 and λ2 < 1, then f(λ1, λ2) < 1.

4. f(λ1, λ2) ≤ λ1 + λ2 for all λ1, λ2 ∈ [0, 1].

Proof. The proof proceeds along the same lines as the proof of Theo-

rem 3.2, except that we will use a geometric argument to directly bound (2)

rather than first passing to (3). That is, we must bound (using the same

notation as in that proof)

〈Mα,α〉〈α,α〉 =

〈A(α‖ + Bα⊥), α‖ + Bα⊥〉‖α‖ + α⊥‖2

.

The key observation is:

Claim 4.4. A is a reflection through a linear subspace S of RN1D1 . Hence,

for any vector v, 〈Av, v〉 = (cos2θ) ·‖v‖2, where θ is the angle between v and S.

Proof of claim. By the symmetry of A, we can decompose RN1D1 into the

sum of orthogonal eigenspaces of A. Since A2 = IN1D1, the only eigenvalues of

A are ±1. Take S to be the 1-eigenspace of A.

Thus, the expression we want to bound is

|〈Mα,α〉|〈α,α〉 = |cos2θ| · ‖α

‖ + Bα⊥‖2

‖α‖ + α⊥‖2= |cos2θ| · cos2φ

cos2φ′,

where θ is the angle between α‖+Bα⊥ and S, φ ∈ [0, π/2] is the angle between

α‖ and α‖ + α⊥, and φ′ ∈ [0, π/2] is the angle between α‖ and α‖ + Bα⊥.


If we also let ψ be the angle between α‖ and S, then we clearly have θ ∈[ψ − φ′, ψ + φ′].

Now we translate Claims 4.1 and 4.2 into this geometric language. Claim 4.1

constrains the relationship between φ′ and φ by

tan φ′

tanφ=

‖Bα⊥‖‖α⊥‖ ≤ λ2.

Claim 4.2 says |cos2ψ| ≤ λ1. For notational convenience, we will denote the

exact values of (tan φ′)/(tan φ) and |cos2ψ| by µ2 and µ1, respectively. We will

work with these values until the end of the proof, at which point we will upper

bound them by λ2 and λ1.

To summarize, we want to maximize

(5) |cos2θ| · cos2φ

cos2φ′

over the variables θ, φ, φ′, and ψ, subject to the following constraints:

1. φ, φ′, ψ ∈ [0, π/2].

2. θ ∈ [ψ − φ′, ψ + φ′].2

3. tan φ′/ tan φ = µ2.

4. |cos2ψ| = µ1.

There are two cases, depending on whether |cos2x| ever achieves the value 1

in the interval [ψ − φ′, ψ + φ′].

Case I. φ′ ≤ min{ψ, π/2 − ψ}. Then

|cos2θ| = max{|cos2(ψ + φ′)|, |cos2(ψ − φ′)|}= |cos2ψ · cos2φ′| + | sin 2ψ · sin 2φ′|.

After some trigonometric manipulations, we have

|cos2θ| · cos2φ

cos2φ′=

1

2

∣

∣

∣(1 − µ22)cos2ψ + (1 + µ2

2)cos2ψcos2φ∣

∣

∣+1

2|2µ2 sin 2ψ sin 2φ|.

The choice of φ which maximizes this is to have (cos2φ, sin 2φ) be a unit vector

in the direction of (±(1 + µ22)cos2ψ, 2µ2 sin 2ψ); thus

|cos2θ| · cos2φ

cos2φ′≤ 1

2(1 − µ2

2)|cos2ψ| +1

2

√

(1 + µ22)

2cos22ψ + 4µ22 sin2 2ψ

=1

2(1 − µ2

2)µ1 +1

2

√

(1 + µ22)

2µ21 + 4µ2

2(1 − µ21).

2We do not require θ ∈ [0, π/2] so that we do not have to worry about “wraparound” in the

interval [ψ − φ′, ψ + φ′]. Adding a multiple of π/2 to θ does not change the value of (5).


Case II. φ′ > min{ψ, π/2 − ψ}. In this case, we cannot obtain any

nontrivial bound on |cos2θ|, so, after some trigonometric manipulations, the

problem is reduced to bounding:

(6) |cos2θ| · cos2φ

cos2φ′≤ cos2φ

cos2φ′= µ2

2 + (1 − µ22)cos

2φ.

The condition φ′ > min{ψ, π/2−ψ} implies that cos2φ′ < |cos2ψ| = µ1. After

some trigonometric manipulations, we have

cos2φ′ =(1 + µ2

2)cos2φ− µ2

2

(1 − µ22)cos

2φ+ µ22

,

and the condition cos2φ′ < µ1 is equivalent to

cos2φ <µ2

2(1 + µ1)

(1 − µ1) + µ22(1 + µ1)

.

Substituting this into (6) and simplifying, we conclude that

|cos2θ| · cos2φ

cos2φ′<

2µ22

1 − µ1 + µ22(1 + µ1)

.

It can be verified that the bound obtained in Case I is an increasing

function of µ1 and µ2 and is always greater than or equal to the bound in

Case II. Therefore, replacing µ1 and µ2 by λ1 and λ2 in the Case I bound

proves the theorem.

5. The base graph

Our construction of an infinite family of expanders in Section 3.2 requires

starting with a (D8,D, λ)-graph H (for a sufficiently small λ, say ≤ 1/5).

Since D is a “constant,” such a graph can be found by exhaustive search

(given that one exists, which can be proven by (nontrivial) probabilistic ar-

guments [Alo86a], [BS87], [FKS89], [Fri91]). However, for these parameters,

there are simple explicit constructions known. We describe two of them below.

The first is simpler and more intuitive, but the second yields better parameters.

5.1. The affine plane. The first construction is based on the “projective

plane” construction of Alon [Alo86b], but we instead use the affine plane in

order to make N exactly D2 and then use the zig-zag product to obtain a

graph with N = D8. For a prime power q = pt, let Fq be the finite field of size

q; an explicit representation of such a field can be found deterministically in

time poly(p, t) [Sho90]. We define a graph APq with vertex set F2q, and edge

set {((a, b), (c, d)) : ac = b + d}. That is, we connect the vertex (a, b) to all

points on the line La,b = {(x, y) : y = ax− b}. (Note that we have chosen the

sign of b to make the graph undirected.)


Lemma 5.1. APq is an (q2, q, 1/√q)-graph. Moreover, a rotation map for

APq can be computed in time poly(log q) given a representation of the field Fq.

Proof. The expansion of APq will follow from the fact the square of APqis almost the complete graph, which in turn is based on the fact that almost

all pairs of lines in the plane F2q intersect. Let M be the q2 × q2 normalized

adjacency matrix of APq; we will now calculate the entries of M2. The entry of

M2 in row (a, b) and column (a′, b′) is exactly the number of common neighbors

of (a, b) and (a′, b′) in APq divided by q2, i.e., |La,b ∩La′,b′ |/q2. If a 6= a′, then

La,b and La′,b′ intersect in exactly one point. If a = a′ and b 6= b′, then their

intersection is empty, and if a = a′ and b = b′, then their intersection is of size

q. Thus, if we let Iq denote the q × q identity matrix and Jq the q × q all-1’s

matrix, we have

M2 =1

q2

qIq Jq · · · JqJq qIq Jq...

. . . JqJq Jq · · · qIq

=Iq ⊗ qIq + (Jq − Iq) ⊗ Jq

q2.

Now we can calculate the eigenvalues explicitly. Jq has eigenvalues q (multi-

plicity 1) and 0 (multiplicity q−1). So (Jq− Iq)⊗Jq has eigenvalues (q−1) ·q,−1 · q, and 0. Adding Iq ⊗ qIq increases all these eigenvalues by q, and then

we divide by q2. Hence the eigenvalues of M2 are 1 (multiplicity 1), 0 (multi-

plicity q − 1), and 1/q (multiplicity (q − 1) · q). Therefore, the second largest

eigenvalue of M has absolute value 1/√q.

A rotation map for APq is given by

Rotq((a, b), t) =

{

((t/a, t− b), t) if a 6= 0 and t 6= 0,

((t,−b), a) if a = 0 or t = 0,

where a, b, t ∈ Fq.

Now, define the following graphs inductively:

AP1q = APq ⊗ APq

APi+1q = APiq©z APq.

From Proposition 2.4 and Theorem 3.2, we immediately deduce:

Proposition 5.2. APiq is a (q2(i+1), q2, O(i/√q))-graph.3 Moreover, a

rotation map for APiq can be computed in time poly(i, log q) given a represen-

tation of Fq.

3The hidden constant in O(i/√q) can be reduced to 1 using the improved analysis of the zig-zag

product in Theorem 4.3.


Taking i = 7 and a sufficiently large q gives a graph suitable for the

expander construction in Section 3.2.

5.2. Low -degree polynomials. The graphs we describe here are derived

from constructions of Alon and Roichman [AR94], which are Cayley graphs

derived from the generator matrix of an error-correcting code. In order to give

a self-contained presentation, we specialize the construction to a Reed-Solomon

code concatenated with a Hadamard code (as used in, e.g. [AGHP92]).

For a prime power q and d ∈ N, we define a graph LDq,d on vertex set

Fd+1q with degree q2. For a vertex a ∈ Fd+1

q and x, y ∈ Fq, the the (x, y)th

neighbor of a is a+ (y, yx, yx2, . . . , yxd).

Proposition 5.3. LDq,d is a (qd+1, q2, d/q)-graph. Moreover, a rotation

map for LDq,d can be computed in time poly(log q, d) given a representation

of Fq.

As above, taking d = 7 and sufficiently large q gives a graph suitable

for our expander construction. These graphs are better than those of Propo-

sition 5.2 because the the eigenvalue-degree relationship is the optimal λ =

O(1/√D) (as q grows), which implies an eigenvalue of O(1/D1/4) for the fam-

ily constructed in Theorem 3.3.

Proof. To simplify notation, let F = Fq. Let M be the qd+1 × qd+1 nor-

malized adjacency matrix of LDq,d. We view vectors in Cqd+1

as functions

f : Fd+1 → C. We will now explicitly describe the eigenvectors of M . Let p be

the characteristic of F, let ζ = e2πi/p be a primitive pth root of unity, and let

L : F → Fp be any surjective Fp-linear map. (For simplicity, one can think of

the special case that p = q and L is the identity map.)

For every sequence a = (a0, . . . , ad) ∈ Fd+1, define the function χa :

Fd+1 → C by χa(b) = ζL(∑

aibi). Clearly, χa(b + c) = χa(b)χa(c) for any

b, c ∈ Fd+1. Moreover, it can be verified that the {χa} are orthogonal under

the standard inner product 〈f, g〉 =∑

b f(b)g(b)∗, and thus form a basis for

Cqd+1

. Hence, if we show that each χa is an eigenvector of M , then they are

all the eigenvectors of M . This can be done by direct calculation:

(Mχa)(b) =1

q2

∑

c∈Fd+1

Mbc · χa(c)

=1

q2

∑

x,y∈F

χa(b+ (y, yx, . . . , yxd))

=

(∑

x,y∈F χa(y, yx, . . . , yxd)

q2

)

· χa(b)

def= λa · χa(b).


Thus, χa is an eigenvector of M with eigenvalue λa and all eigenvectors

of M are of this form. So we simply need to show that |λa| ≤ d/q for all but

one a ∈ Fd+1. To do this, note that

λa =1

q2

∑

x,y∈F

χa((y, yx, . . . , yxd)) =

1

q2

∑

x,y∈F

ζL(y·pa(x)),

where pa(x) is the polynomial a0 + a1x+ · · · + adxd. When x is a root of pa,

then ζL(ypa(x)) = 1 for all y; hence x contributes q/q2 = 1/q to λa. When x

is not a root of pa(x), ypa(x) takes on all values in F as y varies, and hence

ζL(ypa(x)) varies uniformly over all pth roots of unity. Since the sum of all pth

roots of unity is 0, these x’s contribute nothing to λa. When a 6= 0, pa has at

most d roots, so |λa| ≤ d/q.

6. Variants on the zig-zag theme

The two subsections of this section contain two variants of the basic zig-

zag product. The first is aimed at improving the relation between the degree

and the eigenvalue bound. The second is aimed at simplifying the product, at

the cost of deteriorating this relationship.

6.1. A “derandomized” zig-zag product. In this section we provide a vari-

ant of our original zig-zag product, which achieves a better relationship between

the degree and the expansion of the resulting graph. The term “derandomized”

will become clearer when we define it.

Recall that the optimal second-largest eigenvalue for an infinite family

of D-regular graphs is Θ(1/D1/2), and families of graphs meeting this bound

(with the right constant) are referred to as Ramanujan. A basic question is how

close can we come to this optimal bound using our techniques. Starting with a

constant-size Ramanujan graph (or the graphs of §5.2), our basic construction

of Theorem 3.3 achieves a second-largest eigenvalue of O(1/D1/4) for the family

of expanders generated..

Here, we define a variant of the zig-zag product, which makes more ef-

ficient use of the expansion of the small graph. Using the new product in

our iterative construction (of §3.2) with an initial constant-size Ramanujan

graph or even the graphs of Proposition 5.3, we obtain a second-largest eigen-

value of O(1/D1/3) for the family of expanders generated. It is an interesting

open problem to construct families of graphs achieving the optimal eigenvalue

O(1/D1/2) using a similar graph product.

We now turn to the formal definition of the new zig-zag product. It will

have two “zig” moves and two “zag” moves, but they will not be independent.

The second “zig” and the first “zag” will use the same random bits!


Definition 6.1. Let G1 be a D1-regular graph on [N1] with rotation map

RotG1and let G2 be a D2-regular graph on [D1] with rotation map RotG2

.

Suppose that for every i ∈ [D2], RotG2(·, i) induces a permutation on [D1].

4

Then the modified zig-zag product of G1 and G2 is defined to be the D32-regular

graph G1 ©′z G2 on [N1] × [D1] whose rotation map RotG1©′z G2is as follows:

RotG1©′z G2((v, k), (h, i, j)):

1. Let (k′, h′) = RotG2(k, h).

2. Let (k′′, i′) = RotG2(k′, i).

3. Let (w, ℓ′′) = RotG1(v, k′′).

4. Find the unique ℓ′ ∈ [D1] such that (ℓ′′, i′′) = RotG2(ℓ′, i) for some i′′.

(ℓ′ exists by the assumption on RotG2.)

5. Let (ℓ, j′) = RotG2(ℓ′, j).

6. Output ((w, ℓ), (j′ , i, h′)).

Again, in this graph product we do two random steps on the small graph

in both the zig and the zag parts. However, to save random bits (i.e., decrease

the degree) we use the same random bits for the second move of the zig part

and the first move of the zag part. Thus the degree of the new graph is D32.

However, we will show that the bound on the eigenvalue will be as if these

moves were independent. This proof will follow the lines of the basic analysis

of the original zig-zag product.


graph, then G1 ©′z G2 is a (N1 ·D1,D32 , λ1 + 2λ2

2)-graph. Moreover, RotG1©′z G2

can be computed in time poly(logN, logD1,D2) with one oracle query to RotG1

and D2 + 2 oracle queries to RotG2.

Proof. We use the same notation as in the proof of Theorem 3.2. Like

there, we need to bound |〈Mα,α〉|/〈α,α〉, whereM is the normalized adjacency

matrix of G1©′z G2 and α ⊥ 1N1D1. Let Bi be the D1×D1 permutation matrix

induced by RotG2(·, i), and let Bi = IN1

⊗Bi. Then

B =1

D2

D2∑

i=1

Bi.

4By this we mean that the function fi(x) = “the first component of RotG2(x, i)” =

“the ith neighbor of x” is a permutation for every i.


Note that the normalized adjacency matrix corresponding to Steps 2–4 in the

definition of G1 ©′z G2 is given by

M ′ =1

D2

∑

i

BiABTi ,

where BTi is the transpose (equivalently, inverse) of Bi. Thus, M = BM ′B.

The main observation is that not only does Bα‖ = α‖ (as we used in the original

analysis), but also BTi α

‖ = α‖ for every i (because Bi is a permutation matrix).

Hence,

M ′α‖ =1

D2

∑

i

BiABTi α

‖ =1

D2

∑

i

BiAα‖ = BAα‖.

Applying this (and the symmetry of B and M ′), we get

〈Mα,α〉 = 〈Mα‖, α‖〉 + 2〈Mα‖, α⊥〉 + 〈Mα⊥, α⊥〉

= 〈Aα‖, α‖〉 + 2〈Aα‖, B2α⊥〉 + 〈M ′Bα⊥, Bα⊥〉.

Being the normalized adjacency matrix of an undirected, regular graph, M ′

has no eigenvalues larger than 1 and hence does not increase the length of any

vector. Using this together with Claims 4.1 and 4.2, we have

|〈Mα,α〉| ≤ |〈Aα‖, α‖〉| + 2‖α‖‖ · ‖B2α⊥‖ + ‖Bα⊥‖2

≤ λ1 · ‖α‖‖2 + 2λ22 · ‖α‖‖ · ‖α⊥‖ + λ2

2 · ‖α⊥‖2.

As in the the proof of Theorem 3.2, using the fact that ‖α‖‖2 + ‖α⊥‖2 = ‖α‖2

yields the desired bound.

6.2. The replacement product. In this section, we describe an extremely

simple and intuitive graph product, which shares similar properties to the zig-

zag product. Namely, when taking the product of two expanders, we get a

larger expander whose degree depends only on that of the smaller graph. Here

simplicity is the important feature, and the expansion quality is not as good as

above. This product is so natural that it was used in various contexts before.

Indeed, Gromov [Gro83] even estimates the second eigenvalue of an iterated

replacement product of the graph of the Boolean hypercube with smaller copies

of itself. (Of course, in this very special case the outcome is not expanding,

since the cube is not.) Our proof of its expansion will be a simple reduction to

the expansion properties of the zig-zag product. However, one can also prove

it directly in a manner similar to the proof of Theorem 3.2 (and thereby obtain

a stronger bound).

Assume (as in the basic zig-zag product) that G1 is a D1-regular graph

on [N1] and G2 is a D2-regular graph on [D1]. A natural idea is to place a

“copy” (or “cloud”) of G2 around each vertex of G1, maintaining the edges of

both. More precisely, every vertex will be connected to all its original neighbors


in its cloud, as well as to one vertex in the neighboring cloud it defines. For

example, if G1 is the n-dimensional Boolean cube graph, and G2 is the cycle on

n vertices, then the resulting graph is the so-called cube connected cycle, which

used to be a popular architecture for parallel computers. Note that in this

example the small graph had degree 2, and the product graph had degree 3.

In general, the resulting graph would have degree D2 + 1. In terms of rotation

maps, this product is defined as follows.



, then

their replacement product G1©r G2 is defined to be the (D2 + 1)-regular graph

on [N1] × [D1] whose rotation map RotG1©r G2is as follows:

RotG1©r G2((v, k), i):

1. If i ≤ D2, let (m, j) = RotG2(k, i) and output ((v,m), j).

2. If i = D2 + 1, output (RotG1(v, k), i).

The expansion properties of the replacement product are given in the next

theorem, relating it to those of the zig-zag product.


graph, then G1 ©r G2 is a (N1 · D1,D2 + 1, g(λ1, λ2,D2))-graph, where (using

the function f from Theorems 3.2 or 4.3)

g(λ1, λ2,D2) ≤ (p+ (1 − p)f(λ1, λ2))1/3 ,

and p = D22/(D2 + 1)3. In particular, g(λ1, λ2,D2) < 1 when λ1, λ2 < 1.

Moreover, RotG1©r G2can be computed in time poly(logN, logD1, logD2) with

one oracle query to RotG1or RotG2

.

Proof. The idea of the proof is that the graph of the zig-zag product is a

regular subgraph of the cube of the graph of the replacement product. Let M

denote the normalized adjacency matrix of G1 ©r G2. As in the proof of The-

orem 3.2, we let A,B respectively denote the normalized adjacency matrices

of G1, G2, and define their “liftings” A, B in the same way. By inspection, we

have M = (A+D2B)/(D2 + 1). The key observation is that

M3 =(A+D2B)3

(D2 + 1)3= pBAB + (1 − p)C,

where BAB is the normalized adjacency matrix of G1©z G2, C is the normalized

adjacency matrix of an undirected, regular graph (and in particular does not

increase the length of any vector), and p = D22/(D2 + 1)3. As eigenvalues of

powers of matrices are the respective powers of the original eigenvalues (see

Proposition 2.3), we have

g(λ1, λ2) ≤ (p+ (1 − p)f(λ1, λ2))1/3.


Thus, for “constant” degrees D2 the replacement product indeed trans-

forms two expanders into a larger one. As in Corollary 3.4, we can use this to

get degree 3 expanders.

Corollary 6.5. For every λ < 1 and every odd D, there exists a λ′ < 1

such that if G is an (N,D, λ)-graph and C is the cycle on D vertices, then

G©r C is a (ND, 3, λ′)-graph.

To make the expansion properties in Theorem 6.4 independent of how

large D2 is, we now slightly modify the replacement product to have D2 copies

of each edge which goes between clouds. This makes the degree of every vertex

2D2, of which D2 stay within the same cloud, and the other D2 all connect to

the same vertex in a neighbor cloud. This “balancing” make the random walk

give the same weight to edges defined by G1 and G2.



, then

their balanced replacement product G1 ©b G2 is defined to be the 2D2-regular

graph on [N1] × [D1] whose rotation map RotG1©b G2is as follows:

RotG1©b G2((v, k), i):

1. If i ≤ D2, let (m, j) = RotG2(k, i) and output ((v,m), j).

2. If i > D2, output (RotG1(v, k), i).


graph, then G1 ©b G2 is a (N1 · D1, 2D2, h(λ1, λ2))-graph, where (using the

function f from Theorems 3.2 or 4.3)

h(λ1, λ2) ≤(

7

8+

1

8· f(λ1, λ2)

)1/3

.

In particular, h(λ1, λ2) < 1 when λ1, λ2 < 1. Moreover, RotG1©b G2can be

computed in time poly(logN, logD1, logD2) with one oracle query to RotG1

and one oracle query to RotG2.

Proof. The proof is the same as that of Theorem 6.4, noting instead that

M = (A+ B)/2.

As a final note, we observe the weakness of the replacement products

relative to the zig-zag product. Informally, in zig-zag the expansion quality of

the product improves with those of its component, while in the replacement it

does not. More formally, while the function f(λ1, λ2) tends to zero when λ1

and λ2 do, the functions g(λ1, λ2,D2) and h(λ1, λ2) do not.


Acknowledgments. We are grateful to David Zuckerman for illuminating

discussions and a number of useful suggestions early in the stages of this work.

We thank the organizers of the DIMACS Workshop on Pseudorandomness and

Explicit Combinatorial Constructions in October 1999, where we began this

research. We are grateful to Peter Winkler for suggesting the name “zig-zag

product.” We also thank Neil Agarwol, Noga Alon, Oded Goldreich, Peter

Sarnak, Ronen Shaltiel, Dan Spielman, and the anonymous referee for helpful

comments and pointers.

AT&T Labs - Research, Florham Park, NJ

E-mail address: [email protected]

Division of Engineering & Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA


Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton and The Hebrew University, Jerusalem,

Isreal


References

[Ajt94] M. Ajtai, Recursive construction for 3-regular expanders, Combinatorica 14

(1994), 379–416.[AKS83] M. Ajtai, J. Komlos, and E. Szemeredi, Sorting in c log n parallel steps, Com-

binatorica 3 (1983), 1–19.[Alo86a] N. Alon, Eigenvalues and expanders, Combinatorica 6 (1986), 83–96.[Alo86b] , Eigenvalues, geometric expanders, sorting in rounds, and Ramsey

theory, Combinatorica 6 (1986), 207–219.[AGM87] N. Alon, Z. Galil, and V. D. Milman, Better expanders and superconcentra-

tors, J. Algorithms 8 (1987), 337–347.[AGHP92] N. Alon, O. Goldreich, J. Hastad, and R. Peralta, Simple constructions of

almost k-wise independent random variables, Random Structures Algorithms

3 (1992), 289–304.[ALW01] N. Alon, A. Lubotzky, and A. Wigderson, Semi-direct product in groups

and zig-zag product in graphs: Connections and applications, in 42nd Annual

Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Las Vegas, Nevada, 14–17October 2001, IEEE , to appear.

[AM85] N. Alon and V. D. Milman, λ1, Isoperimetric inequalities for graphs, andsuperconcentrators, J. Combinatorial Theory 38 (1985), 73–88.

[AR94] N. Alon and Y. Roichman, Random Cayley graphs and expanders, Random

Structures Algorithms 5 (1994), 271–284.[BS87] A. Broder and E. Shamir, On the second eigenvalue of random regular graphs

(preliminary version), in 28th Annual Sympos. on Foundations of Computer

Science, pages 286–294, Los Angeles, California, 12–14 October 1987, IEEE .[Fri91] J. Friedman, On the second eigenvalue and random walks in random d-regular

graphs, Combinatorica 11 (1991), 331–362.[FKS89] J. Friedman, J. Kahn, and E. Szemeredi, On the second eigenvalue in random

regular graphs, in Proc. of the Twenty-First Annual ACM Symposium on

Theory of Computing, pages 587–598, Seattle, Washington, 15–17 May 1989.


[GG81] O. Gabber and Z. Galil, Explicit constructions of linear-sized superconcen-trators, J. Computer System Sciences 22 (1981), 407–420.

[GILVZ90] O. Goldreich, R. Impagliazzo, L. Levin, R. Venkatesan, and D. Zuckerman,Security preserving amplification of hardness, in 31st Annual Symposium on

Foundations of Computer Science, volume I, pages 318–326, St. Louis, Mis-souri, 22–24 October 1990, IEEE .

[Gro83] M. Gromov, Filling Riemannian manifolds, J. Differential Geom. 81 (1983),1–147.

[Gro00] , Spaces and questions, Geometric and Functional Analysis 2000, 118–161, Part I of Special Volume on GAFA 2000 (Tel Aviv, 1999).

[INW94] R. Impagliazzo, N. Nisan, and A. Wigderson, Pseudorandomness for networkalgorithms, in Proc. of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on the

Theory of Computing, pages 356–364, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 23–25 May1994.

[IW97] R. Impagliazzo and A. Wigderson, P = BPP if E requires exponential circuits:Derandomizing the XOR lemma, in Proc. of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM

Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 220–229, El Paso, Texas, 4–6 May1997.

[JM87] S. Jimbo and A. Maruoka, Expanders obtained from affine transformations,Combinatorica 7 (1987), 343–355.

[KR83] N. J. Kalton and J. W. Roberts, Uniformly exhaustive submeasures andnearly additive set functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 278 (1983), 803–816.

[Lub94] A. Lubotzky, Discrete Groups, Expanding Graphs and Invariant Measures,Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1994.

[LP01] A. Lubotzky and I. Pak, The product replacement algorithm and Kazhdan’sproperty (T), J. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (2001), 347–363 (electronic).

[LPS88] A. Lubotzky, R. Phillips, and P. Sarnak, Ramanujan graphs, Combinatorica

8 (1988), 261–277.[Mar73] G. A. Margulis, Explicit constructions of expanders, Problemy Peredaci In-

formacii 9 (1973), 71–80.[Mar88] , Explicit group-theoretic constructions of combinatorial schemes and

their applications in the construction of expanders and concentrators, Prob-

lemy Peredachi Informatsii 24 (1988), 51–60.[MW01] R. Meshulam and A. Wigderson, Expanders in group algebras, in preparation,

2001.[Mor94] M. Morgenstern, Existence and explicit constructions of q + 1 regular Ra-

manujan graphs for every prime power q, J. Combinatorial Theory 62 (1994),44–62.

[NN93] J. Naor and M. Naor, Small-bias probability spaces: efficient constructionsand applications, SIAM Journal on Computing 22 (1993), 838–856.

[Nil91] A. Nilli, On the second eigenvalue of a graph, Discrete Math. 91 (1991),207–210.

[Nis96] N. Nisan, Extracting randomness: How and why: a survey, in Proc. Eleventh

Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 44–58, Philadel-phia, Pennsylvania, 24–27 May 1996, IEEE , Computer Society Press.

[NT99] N. Nisan and A. Ta-Shma, Extracting randomness: a survey and new construc-tions, J. Computer System Sciences 58 (1999), 148–173.

[NZ96] N. Nisan and D. Zuckerman, Randomness is linear in space, J. Computer

System Sciences 52 (1996), 43–52.[Pin73] M. S. Pinsker, On the complexity of a concentrator, in 7th Annual Teletraffic

Conference, pages 318/1–318/4, Stockholm, 1973.[Pip87] N. Pippenger, Sorting and selecting in rounds, SIAM Journal on Computing

16 (1987), 1032–1038.


[PY82] N. Pippenger and A. C. Yao, Rearrangeable networks with limited depth,SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Methods 3 (1982), 411–417.

[RR99] R. Raz and O. Reingold, On recycling the randomness of the states in spacebounded computation, in Proc. of the Thirty-First Annual ACM Symposium

on the Theory of Computing, Atlanta, GA, May 1999, 159–168.[RSW00] O. Reingold, R. Shaltiel, and A. Wigderson, Extracting randomness via re-

peated condensing, in 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer

Science, Redondo Beach, California, 12–14 November 2000, IEEE .[RVW00] O. Reingold, S. Vadhan, and A. Wigderson, Entropy waves, the zig-zag graph

product, and new constant-degree expanders and extractors (extended ab-stract), in 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Re-dondo Beach, California, 12–14 November 2000, IEEE . See a more completeversion in ECCC TR01-018, http://www.eccc.uni-trier.de/eccc.

[Sho90] V. Shoup, New algorithms for finding irreducible polynomials over finite fields,Mathematics of Computation 54 (1990), 435–447.

[Sip88] M. Sipser, Expanders, randomness, or time versus space, J. Computer System

Sciences 36 (1988), 379–383.[SS96] M. Sipser and D. A. Spielman, Expander codes, IEEE Transactions on Infor-

mation Theory 42 (1996), 1710–1722.[Spi96] D. A. Spielman, Linear-time encodable and decodable error-correcting codes,

IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 42 (1996), 1723–1731.[TUZ01] A. Ta-Shma, C. Umans, and D. Zuckerman, Loss-less condensers, unbalanced

expanders, and extractors, in Proc. of the Thirty-third Annual ACM Sympo-

sium on Theory of Computing, pages 143–162, Crete, Greece, 6–8 July 2001.[Tan84] R. M. Tanner, Explicit concentrators from generalized N-gons, SIAM J. on

Algebraic Discrete Methods 5 (1984), 287–293.[Urq87] A. Urquhart, Hard examples for resolution, J. Association for Computing

Machinery 34 (1987), 209–219.[Val77] L. G. Valiant, Graph-theoretic arguments in low-level complexity, in Math-

ematical Foundations of Computer Science (Proc. Sixth Sympos., Tatranska

Lomnica, 1977), pages 162–176, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci . 53, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977.

(Received July 10, 2000)

Documents

and new constant-degree expanders - arXiv · Entropy waves, the zig-zag graph product, and new constant-degree expanders By Omer Reingold, Salil Vadhan, and Avi Wigderson* Abstract